Not terribly surprising, really. I didn't have problems with it either when I was using it. Vista's biggest problem when it was released was the device driver situation. Microsoft overhauled the hardware abstraction layer between XP and Vista, requiring hardware manufacturers to overhaul their device drivers. At first the Vista/7 drivers for a lot of hardware were either buggy or nonexistent and it caused problems for a lot of people. Between that and the fact that the pre-service-pack builds of some of the "under-the-hood" components weren't optimized well for lower-spec machines Vista got a rep for being an inherently buggy OS. The reality is that as of the most recent service packs and hardware manufacturers having time to get their drivers up-to-snuff Vista isn't a whole lot different than Windows 7.

Bought this computer 2 years ago this July....still have all the original parts.

Well that explains a lot. I just felt almost compelled to mention I've never had a problem with Vista because of the bad rap it has received. Even friends and co-workers who have had Vista glare at me when they find out mine works fine.

^^ More or less this. I less upgrade, and more just fully overhaul my entire computer, all that will remain this time around is likely my case. I don't really see the point in upgrading every 2 years or so, as long as you buy more or less new stuff every 5 years, it'll last and play anything that comes out in that time period just fine. Maybe it'll be lower end of spectrum by the end of the, but it will still play them. I'm currently running dual 9600 GTX NVIDIA cards, 3Gigs of 800MHZ Ram, Quad-Core 2.6GHZ Processor, 750GIG HDD, Windows XP SP3. It's been more or less 5 years, not sure if I"ll be able to upgrade this year, but next year for sure. I'll probably go to an i7 Processor, likely Quad-core 3.0GHZ, Dual 460GTX NVIDIA cards, Windows 7, a new MOBO that will support the i7 Processor, and 8GIGs of 1600 ram(might go for the next tier above t hat though). Not to worried about buying the 500 series of NVIDIA cards, not when I'm running dual 460's. As long as it supports DX11, I'll be happy. That will run me just fine for the next 5 years

Early Vista really left a bad taste in everybody's mouth, and once a reputation is tarnished like that it's difficult to improve it as everybody already has their minds made up.

I upgraded to Vista, though not until after service pack 1 had been released. I didn't notice any decrease in performance from XP.

EDIT: Funny, I just went on Newegg for the first time in a few months. Under the CPUs page, they're liquidating a ton of refurbished Pentiums and Semprons. $4 for a Pentium 4, anyone ?

I don't think many people did. It just got an undeservingly bad rep because of a few things. Even when it was in development it got a lot of vocal critisism for DRM stuff that was rumored to be in it, but didn't turn up in the final product and that seem to have caused a large snowball effect of vocal complainers. Although UAC. the poor driver support at launch and the increased RAM requirements certainly didn't help either

Haven't upgraded my PC in five years. Still run the most demanding games on high, but I am considering getting a new video card soon.

Yep, forgot about what a nightmare UAC was at first. Not only the prompts, but the fact that a lot of older software would crash when the OS wouldn't let it write to system folders (which is a good thing as far as security goes, but it caused problems for a lot of people).

From that standpoint, though, Windows 7 is no different as it has the same protection on directory and registry writes as Vistas. The only difference being by default Windows 7 doesn't prompt UAC for things initiated from the control panel and a few whitelisted exceptions related to keyboard actions (which allows for malware to completely bypass Windows 7's UAC in some cases)

The problem isn't your video card (especially in Skyrim). The GTX 560 Ti is more than capable. Its the stock FX processor. They are extremely weak for gaming - previous generation Phenom II's can beat them in most games. If you feel comfortable doing it overclock it to about 4.0 Ghz (or more) and you'll see a marked improvement.

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/362?vs=434 What a bummer! I did take your advice and over clock it, I over clocked it to 3.9GHZ and it made a HUGE difference. Skyrim is staying pegged @60fps most of the time and I am running it @ 1920x1080 on Ultra. And BF3 is running @50~60fps most of the time and I am running it @1920x1080 on High. Over all its a big improvement for both games. But I still would like to replace the video card because a faster video card would give me even better results.

Greg

I try to do as less as I can.

When I do however I try to get the best there is such as my last upgrade.

Before
Vista Ultimate 32 bit (When circuit city closed i got it for $30)
1.8ghz core 2 duo intel CPU
4GB RAM
200GB HDD
9600GT

After
Windows 7 64 bit
3.3 i5 2500k
580GTX
8GB RAM
1TB HDD
60GB SDD

In the last 5 years the only thing I have upgraded is my video card.I can't really push games up to ultra like The Witcher 2(should have got a top of the line card kicking myself I was to cheap to),but it can play anything on high.

Every 2 - 3 years, but this year my uncle bought every thing for me. Didn't have to spend one single dime.

Mine's 3 years old now. I'll probably buy a new graphics card next year, and replace the CPU/motherboard/RAM another year later. This year I'm getting a new monitor which should last me a very long time, my current monitor is 17" and the new one will be 23". I really don't need more than that any time soon.

I usually upgrade my PC when the hardware is obsolete. (5-7 years)

My current setup it this:
AMD 6990
i7 960
6,00 GB Ram

I just lost my secondary monitor due its old age. So I have to get a new one.

Whenever I feel like it can't keep up. I made this computer about 6 years ago. When I first bought it I was using a 2.5 ghz dual core processor, 4 gb of RAM and a Radeon 4850. Now I have 8GB of RAM a 3.0ghz core 2 duo processor and a radeon 6850. Ive been getting into a lot of 3d rendering and audio/video work so I needed something that is somewhat competent (still no where near acceptable for professional rendering though).

Around three years since since anything has been upgraded, besides the video card that's about it. I think I should be good for another two years.

I'm glad its working out Greg. The FX processors are very easy to OC since they're all unlocked and all you have to do is up the cpu multiplier and "maybe" adjust the cpu voltage a little. Are you using the stock cooler? If so, please keep an eye on your temperature while at load - if its going over 55C you should think about a good aftermarket Heatsink/Fan. I was thinking something wasn't right though when I read your first post - my old Phenom II X4 @ 3.9 Ghz paired with a GTX 460 1GB @ 875 Mhz also has Skyrim pretty much between 50-60 FPS everywhere. Didn't make sense a GTX 560 Ti would be holding you back too much in the game.

its the stock cooler, I ran prime 95 for 45minutes and the temp never went over 51*. But when I run games all 8cores are not under a 100% load and it runs a 40*. Its a shame that I had to OC the CPU to get the preformance I desired. But live and learn I guess.

Greg

P.S. its so nice to get a smooth 60fps in Oblivion (most of the time). The PC is now running like I thought/wished it should/would run.

So true. I always say if Win 7 exchanged with Vista at launch date, it would have received same critism as Vista, and Vista would have been praised in its place. I've been using this Vista machine for over 4 years already.

I think soon would be a good time to get one since NVidia just came out with it's GTX600 line, which should prompt new Radeon cards to come out in a bit and cause all prices to drop some. I have a (what Newegg considers ancient, I guess) http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814130550 and it mows down anything. I turn down AA or whatever a bit to keep a constant 60FPS, but that's not a huge deal. I'm 99% sure I'm going to skip the GTX600 series since I haven't played a game my current card can't easily handle.

Yeah, UAC doesn't work much differently in Win7 vs. Vista. What's gotten better is that many of the software shops have updated their software to write config and other app information to the "user data" areas rather than system areas. For example, software that used to write config or log data to its Program Files folder should now be writing those to the AppData folder associated with a user or the public AppData location, which don't have the same access restrictions that system areas like Program Files and Windows have. It's a platform standards and practices fix that's needed whether the software is running on Win7 or Vista.

I expect my computers to work for their keep (see sig). I build about one new system a year using the highest second tier parts I can afford.

The latest one is over a year old.
i7-980X @ 3.8
12GB RAM
W7 64
2x GTX460
2x GTS450

The others
i7-950 @ 3.2
6GB RAM
W7 64
2x GTS450

i7-930 @ 3.5
12GB RAM
W7 64
2x GTX460

Q9550 @ 2.8
12GB RAM
Vista 64
2x GTX260/216

Q6600 @ 3.4
2GB RAM
XP SP3 32-bit
2x GTS450

I'm always looking at new hardware, but I'm at the point of actually upgrading my current systems rather than adding to the clutter. These svckers take up a lot of space!

I almost forgot. I also dusted off a Win 98SE machine so I can play Arena without using DOSBox. I can't really upgrade this one.

I am currently looking to buy a new SSD for my main desktop (Intel SATA III 120GB) since my OCZ Agility 2 died a month ago.